Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: The Network Rail briefing for the proposed Cambridge South Railway Station has been cancelled.
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Smart (Councillor Thornburrow
attended as the Alternate), Green and McQueen (neither for whom did an
Alternate attend). |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
To follow. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 4 September and 2 October were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||
Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0512/FUL - Grafton Centre, Fitzroy Street PDF 431 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the redevelopment of the existing
bus turning head and redundant service area to provide a new hotel and
ancillary restaurant (Use Class C1), new public realm (urban park) and
landscape improvements together with associated highway works to East Road
providing new bus stops and pedestrian and cycle routes. The Senior Planner updated her report:
i.
Referenced paragraph 8.19. The Environmental Health
Officer had suggested that the developer could make a financial contribution
towards additional electric vehicle charging points at the Grafton East Car
Park to mitigate against any impacts to air quality
resulting from the proposal. The Senior Planner considered that the charging
points were not required so did not recommend seeking contributions.
ii.
Would seek delegated powers to deal with the detail
of the recommended conditions relative to the triggers for conditions 5, 6, 19,
23 and 36. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident: i.
Expressed concern the building was
unattractive, too big/bulky and too high. ii.
There was no parking provided
on-site. Visitors may park in nearby residential streets some of which had
restrictions limiting parking to residents only between 09:00-17:00, except for
Stafford Street which was 09:00-20:00. The hotel signposted
visitors to park in local public car parks, at £18/day. It was disappointing
that the developer had not negotiated a discounted rate for hotel visitors to
use the car park. iii.
The tree lined boulevard mentioned
in the Supplementary Planning Document was an aspiration. The application would
not deliver the two lines of trees along East Road. iv.
The proposed hotel would dominate
neighbours. v.
The application would cause
pollution. Requested an air monitoring station be included in the development
to monitor the impact of (hotel) traffic on air quality. vi.
East Road would become single
carriageway in future. Mr Newton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee to
outline four concerns about the application: i.
Trees on East Road. The application
would not deliver the two lines of trees along East Road as set out in the
Supplementary Planning Document; the opportunity to secure them should not be
missed. ii.
Height of new building. Flats
opposite the application site had two floors below ground level and would be
visually dominated by the proposed hotel. iii.
Insufficient bike racks for staff
and visitors. It was unacceptable for hotel guests to store cycles in their
rooms due to insufficient parking provision within the application. iv.
Travel Plan for hotel. a.
Some neighbouring residential streets had
restrictions limiting parking to residents only between 09:00-17:00. Other
near-by streets had no restrictions. Hotel guests could take residents’ spaces. b.
The Developer should have done a deal with the Council
to provide discounted parking fees in local car parks. This was not something
which could be controlled by a planning condition and the Committee should be
aware of this prior to making its decision. Councillor Bick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
He expressed scepticism regarding the proposal.
ii.
Acknowledged the Applicant was willing to discuss
issues with stakeholders.
iii.
Welcomed Greater Cambridge Partnership’s (GCP) future
plans to narrow East Road to manage road space. This could impact on congestion
and cycle safety as the East Road work was not being undertaken as part of a
joined-up scheme.
iv.
GCP had not adopted a comprehensive Transport
Strategy to tackle congestion.
v.
It would be hard for the Committee to reject the
application based on the impact of a future GCP Transport Strategy.
vi.
The application would humanise the brutal
streetscape in East Road. There were unattractive buildings and four lanes of
traffic at present. The application could improve these in conjunction with the
GCP Transport Strategy. vii.
Sought clarification on three questions that could
be answered as part of the Committee’s discussion of this item: a.
Referred to paragraph 6.3 of the Officer’s report
and sought reassurance that further public realm improvements would be secured
to the general area in future and this would not be limited to just the hotel
application. b.
Sought reassurance that if an extra crossing was
installed in front of the hotel it would not negatively impact on the Burleigh/Norfolk Street crossing by making pedestrians wait
longer. c.
Sought reassurance that more than two bus stops
would be provided if required in future. The Transport Assessment
Manager
addressed the Committee to clarify the Highway Authority’s position:
i.
Summarised the GCP/Highway Authority’s response to
transport concerns.
ii.
Gave reassurance that if an extra crossing was
installed in front of the hotel it would not negatively impact on the Burleigh/Norfolk Street crossing.
iii.
Gave reassurance that as the area changed there
would be scope to change the transport provision eg the number of bus stops. The Senior Planning Policy
Officer addressed the Committee to clarify the planning policy position
regarding the provision of hotel rooms.
i.
The number of hotel rooms expected in and around
Cambridge was 2,500. Approximately 1,000 had been
built since the 2012 Visitor Accommodation Study was undertaken,
a further 600 had planning permission. The study is due to be refreshed as the
situation had changed since 2012.
ii.
This planning application would bring strategic
benefits to the area particularly as the number of visitors to the City was
increasing. The Committee: Considered using the
Adjourned Decision Protocol (ADP). The Committee resolved (by 5 votes to 0) it was minded to
refuse the application. Members specified design; scale; the drop off facilities
for disabled guests; highway work impact on residents; the over provision of
hotel rooms in Cambridge; and highway safety as indicative of minded to refuse
reasons. Members were invited to consider deferring today’s determination of the
application rather than to apply the ADP because of the nature of the minded to
refuse reasons. Councillor Page-Croft proposed and Councillor Thornburrow seconded a
proposal to defer a decision on the application without invoking the ADP. Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to defer
determination of the application to allow for further consideration/work to address
the indicative minded to refuse reasons relating to: i.
Design, scale and massing. ii.
Drop off arrangements for disabled guests. iii.
Impact of the highway works on residents to the
south of the site on East Road. iv.
Cumulative impact of overprovision of hotel rooms. v.
Highway safety in respect of public realm
improvements to East Road. vi.
Lack of sufficient accessible cycle parking. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1034/FUL - 66-80B Colville Road PDF 193 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing flats
66-80B Colville Road and the erection of 69 affordable dwellings, including 6
houses and 63 apartments, including resident and public car parking,
landscaping and associated works The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the Amendment
Sheet and introducing two further - conditions 31 and 32 for inclusion
consequent to advice from the Environmental Health Officer. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that a new condition should require
two electric vehicle charging points to be installed in the disabled bays and
two at the front of the parking area (instead of rear). The amendments were carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; [and]
ii.
the following additional
conditions: a. No
development shall commence (including any pre-construction, demolition,
enabling works or piling), until a written report, regarding the demolition /
construction noise and vibration impact associated with this development, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall be in accordance with the
provisions of BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites and include full details of any piling and
mitigation measures to be taken to protect local residents from noise and or
vibration. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details only. Due to the proximity of this site to existing
residential premises and other noise sensitive premises, impact pile driving is
not recommended. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby
properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 35) b. No
development shall commence until a programme of measures to minimise the spread
of airborne dust from the site during the demolition / construction period has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby
properties Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 36. c. Prior
to importation or reuse of material for the development (or phase of) a Materials
Management Plan (MMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The MMP shall: 1.
Include details of the volumes and types of
material proposed to be imported or reused on site 2.
Include details of the proposed source(s) of the
imported or reused material 3.
Include details of the chemical testing for ALL
material to be undertaken before placement onto the site. 4.
Include the results of the chemical testing which
must show the material is suitable for use on the development 5.
Include confirmation of the chain of evidence to be
kept during the materials movement, including material importation, reuse
placement and removal from and to the development. All works will be undertaken in accordance
with the approved document. Reason: To ensure that no unsuitable
material is brought onto the site in the interest of environmental and public
safety in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policy 33. d. Notwithstanding
the plans hereby approved, and prior to first occupation, an amended plan
showing the location of electric vehicle charging points shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved detail. Reason:
In the interests of encouraging more sustainable modes and forms of
transport and to reduce the impact of development on local air quality, in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) paragraphs,
110, 170 and 181, Policy 36 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and Cambridge
City Council’s adopted Air Quality Action Plan (2018). |
||||||||||||||||
18/0090/FUL - 63 New Street PDF 256 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a residential
development containing 10 flats comprising 3, 2-bed units, 6, 1-bed units and 1
studio unit along with 1 car parking space and cycle parking following
demolition of the existing buildings on site. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer. |
||||||||||||||||
18/1552/S73 - 8 Seymour Street PDF 144 KB Minutes: The Committee received a s73 application to vary condition
2 (approved drawings) and remove conditions 3 (Preliminary Contamination
Assessment), 4 (Site Investigation Report & Remediation Strategy), 5
(Implementation of Remediation), 6 (Completion Report), 7 (Materials management
Plan), and 21 (Contaminated land assessment and remediation strategy) of
planning permission 18/0581/FUL On the basis this application
does not call for any s106 Agreement the Principal Planner updated his report
by referring to the Amendment Sheet which amended his recommendation as
follows: APPROVE subject to The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Seymour Street: i.
The original application included
a cut out section of the building. This was removed since the Objector moved
into the neighbouring property. ii.
Expressed concern about loss of
light and ventilation as a result of the current application which could impact
on the Objector’s health. Mr Brand (Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer‘s amended recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to the conditions
recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0992/FUL - 2 Green End Road PDF 152 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the conversion and minor external
works to the existing 4 bed dwelling to create 4 1bed dwellings, including the insertion
of 4 dormer windows and alterations to the window openings, cycle and bin store
provision and associated works. The Principal Planner referred to the
amendments contained in the Amendment Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The resident was disabled and
required access to their property at all times. ii.
The development was for 4
dwellings, which could accommodate 8 people and therefore 8 cars being parked
at the development. The chance of the resident’s driveway being blocked was
high, which was a big concern for the resident.
iii.
Questioned what would be done to
prevent the driveway being blocked. iv.
The development could be used for
Air B n B’s, and therefore it was unlikely that there would be long term
residents living in the development. v.
The development encroached on the
residential amenity of the resident. vi.
The development was
overdevelopment of the site. vii.
The design of the development gave
a sense of being ‘squeezed’ by the resident. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer and to the amendments contained within the Amendment Sheet. |
||||||||||||||||
18/1499/S73 - Jubilee House, 3 Hooper Street PDF 130 KB Minutes: The Committee received a section 73
application to vary condition 2 (approved drawings) of permission 15/1194/FUL
(change of use from office (B1a) to form 2 x 2 bed and 6 x 1 bed residential
units (C3) along with a 3 storey rear extension, with roof terrace, and
alterations) to allow alterations to the approved balcony balustrading. The Senior
Planning Officer referred to condition 7 contained in the Amendment Sheet and further
updated condition 7 at the committee meeting: 7. Within three
months of the granting of permission, the 1.7m Pilkington level 5 obscure
glazed balcony screens, as shown on drawing no 106.305.C2, shall be
installed in accordance with the approved details and the obscure glazed
balcony screens shall be retained in accordance with the approved details in
perpetuity. There shall be no further use of the balcony until the obscure
glazed screens subject to this condition have been installed in accordance with
the approved details. Reason: In the
interests of residential amenity (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 56 and
58) The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer plus the amendment to condition 7 as verbally updated at the committee meeting. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0859/FUL - 33 Porson Road PDF 160 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a new 2 storey
dwelling, incorporating rear roof terraces, following the demolition of the
existing property. The Senior Planner referred to the need for an additional condition to
prevent the flat roof element of the development from being used as an amenity
space. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from two local residents. The representations covered the following issues: i.
The development would overlook
adjoining properties. ii.
The scale of the development was
disproportionate to its surroundings. iii.
There had been 14 objections to
the application. iv.
This property was the biggest house
on the road and the application proposed to increase the roof height by 10%. v.
There would be a loss of
residential amenity as the increase in the size of the property to the west
elevation would mean that the occupants of the development would then be able
to look directly into one of the resident’s bedrooms. vi.
The property would extend further
than the last extension. vii.
Expressed concerns regarding the
visual impact of the chimney but noted that the Architect had indicated a
revised plan would be submitted. Mr Orsborn (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to the
conditions recommended by the Officer including an additional condition to
prevent use of flat-roofed elements of the development from being used as
amenity space. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0896/OUT - Achray Gazeley Road PDF 164 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
outline planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of 2 dwellings with a
revised car parking layout for the existing dwelling. The Senior Planner referred to amendments contained in the Amendment
Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Asked that planning approval be limited
to a single storey dwelling. ii.
A two-storey development would
threaten the privacy of Fairfield in Gazeley Road, 8
Clay Farm houses and properties in Wingate Way. iii.
Existing hedges, trees and fences
provided inadequate protection against the loss of privacy. iv.
There was precedent for single
storey developments on Gazeley Road. v.
Archay
provided a boundary between low density housing in Gazeley
Road and higher density on Clay Farm, this demarcation should be retained to
maintain the character of the area. vi.
A bungalow on the site would meet
housing need in Cambridge for a high quality, single storey, large
property. vii.
Access to the site was difficult
because Gazeley Road was a private single lane with a
narrow entrance / exit on to Trumpington Road. viii.
High density housing would
exacerbate drainage problems to the rear of properties on Clay Farm Drive. Mr Anderson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer including the additional condition
and the revised text to the condition contained in the Amendment Sheet. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1048/FUL - Land to the North of Christ the Redeemer Church, Newmarket Road PDF 183 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the change of use of land for the
siting of 5 temporary homes to provide accommodation for homeless people together
with 1 temporary home for a warden/key worker. The Senior Planner updated the Committee on the requirement for
additional conditions relating to occupation of the dwellings. Martin Clarke (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer including the following additional
conditions. Condition 10 No person shall
occupy any of the 5 homeless accommodation units hereby permitted unless such
person shall have first been approved in writing by Cambridge City Council as
an individual meeting the qualifying homeless resident status in accordance
with the Cambridge City Council's Housing First Tenant Selection Criteria, as
defined within the Housing First for Cambridge Proposals for Expansion and
Development dated January 2019 as amended. Reason: To meet
the need for accommodation for homeless people within Cambridge in accordance
with Policy 47 of the Cambridge Local Plan. Condition 11 The warden unit
shall only be occupied by a warden/keyworker offering out of hours support to
the residents of the temporary homes hereby approved. Reason: To meet
the need for accommodation for homeless people within Cambridge in accordance
with Policy 47 of the Cambridge Local Plan. |
||||||||||||||||
18/1805/FUL - Land to the rear of 89-91 DeFreville Avenue PDF 205 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a single storey 2
bed dwelling. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The Officer’s report contained
errors and omissions and failed to interpret objections correctly. ii.
The previously approved
application had lapsed and should not be used as an authority to approve the
current application. iii.
The Committee had approved a new
Boathouse which was located in front of his house and towered above it. iv.
The Planning Officer had not
visited his property and had little knowledge of how the development would
enclose and dominate his property on the eastern side. Mr Langley (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission
in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||||||||
18/1397/FUL - 38 Ramsden Square PDF 147 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for: the erection of an attached
building containing 2 dwellings, single storey rear extension following the
demolition of the existing conservatory and rear box dormer with Juliet balcony
to the main dwelling and the retrospective subdivision of the main dwelling
into 2 flats. Mr Stothard (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to refuse the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0329/FUL - Land rear of 386 Milton Road PDF 176 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the retention of the existing
outbuilding for garaging of motor vehicles and cycle storage together with the
construction of 1 detached bungalow. The Senior Planner confirmed that an informative could be added to the
permission relating to fire engine access to respond to the Committee’s
concerns. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer including an informative regarding fire appliance
arrangements. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0484/FUL - 3 Luard Close PDF 184 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of existing 3 bed
dwelling and the replacement of a new 4 bed dwelling, including a new bike shed
and bin store. The Principal Planner referred to amendments contained in the Amendment
Sheet and also recommended an amendment to condition 15 adding a trigger point. Mr Pomeroy (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. In response to
Members’ concerns the Principal Planner confirmed condition 12 could be amended
to include the provision of bin storage facilities. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer including the following amendments to conditions 12 and 15. Full details of facilities for the covered, secure
parking of bicycles and of bin storage shall be submitted to and approved by
the local planning authority in writing.
The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details before use of the development commences and thereafter
permanently retained. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision for the
secure storage of bicycles and bins. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 57 and
82) Condition 15 Prior to the bringing into use of the access
points, hereby permitted, two pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m shall be
provided each side of both the vehicular accesses to the proposed development.
The splays are to be measured from and along the highway boundary. Such splays
shall be within the red line of the site and shall thereafter be maintained
free from obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adopted public
highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
(Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policy 81). |
||||||||||||||||
18/2009/FUL - 1 Pikes Walk PDF 276 KB Minutes: Councillor Tunnacliffe having declared a
personal and prejudicial interest at the beginning of this meeting left the
room for the determination of this item taking no part in it. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension to
provide an additional dwelling, a second-floor rear extension to the existing
flat and an additional window to the ground floor side elevation. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
98 Kings Street had been extended
in 1992 with a 2-storey extension, part of which was a former art gallery. The
extension took up a considerable amount of the garden space resulting with the
balcony at 98 Kings Street becoming its main amenity space. ii.
The main concern was the loss of
light to 98 Kings Street as a result of the development. iii.
The proposed second floor
extension would create a sense of enclosure at 98 Kings Street. iv.
The balcony at 98 Kings Street was
a substantial garden / outdoor space and had been described as a hidden
treasure, if the development was built this would be lost forever. Councillor Bick
(Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Looked to the Committee to safeguard the resident’s
amenity. ii.
Expressed concerns about the second-floor extension
which added an extra bedroom. iii.
He disagreed with the statement in paragraph 8.13
of the officer’s report which stated that the extension would not add to the
enclosure of 98 King’s Street. His view
was that the resident at 98 King’s Street was already living in an enclosed position
and any further enclosure was serious.
This issue also added importance to the roof terrace. iv.
The addition of an extra storey would make a
significant difference in the context of enclosure which already existed at 98
King’s Street. The Committee: Resolved (by 2 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||||||||
19/0720/FUL - Unit 2 Cambridge Railway Station, Station Road PDF 121 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the change of use to A4 (Drinking
establishment), the use of external space for outdoor seating and the
installation of lighting and signage to the front and side elevation. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer. |